Retired Chairman And Vice Chairman Of CAT Entitled To Same Benefits As Retired High Court Judges: Allahabad High Court

Drawing parity with judges of High Court, the Allahabad High Court has held that retired Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal are entitled to domestic help allowance as a part of pension and other allowances under Rule 15-A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice- Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (1985 Rules).

A bench comprising of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla held:

“It is also to be noticed that in Rule 15-A of Rules 1985, the word to be taken note of is “shall” which occurs therein and accordingly it is mandatory. Thus, mandate of Rules 1985 is that the conditions of service and other perquisites as available to a Judge of High Court shall be made available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well. The very mandatory nature of the language occurring in Rule 15-A makes it obligatory on the part of respondents to make available all the perquisites which, in our opinion, shall include the Domestic Help Allowance as well. The benefit of Domestic Help Allowance is, in fact, a retirement benefit and hence it will be included in the expression ‘pension’ as occurring in Section 2(gg) of Act 1954.”

Rule 15-A of the 1985 Rules provides that conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal shall be the same as those of a serving Judge of a High Court as contained in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956.

Petitioner, while working on the post of District Judge in the State of UP, took voluntary retirement and joined as a Member of Central Administrative Tribunal. He retired as the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal on 22.05.2005. Domestic help allowance was paid to him till 2007, however, it was subsequently stopped. Petitioner filed a representation before the State Government, pursuant to an earlier order of the writ court, which was rejected.

State Government reasoned that High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956 does not provide for pensionary benefits/ domestic help allowances. Further it was stated that based on parity any pensioner can lay any claim only under statutory rules and not otherwise.

Court rejected the aforesaid reasoning and observed that Section 2(gg) of the 1954 Act defines ‘pension’ to include not only pension but any other retiral benefits or sums payable by way of death. Thus, any retiral benefit, including domestic help allowance, available to a retired High Court Judge, shall also be available to Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

While directing the respondents to extend the benefit of domestic help allowance to the Petitioner with effect from 01.03.2008, Court held that the right to claim for payment of domestic help allowance is provided in Rule 15-A of 1985 Rules “which clearly mandates that conditions of service and other perquisites shall be made available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal as are admissible to a Judge of a High Court in terms of the provisions contained in Act, 1954.”

The Court relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mr. Devendra Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India, reported in 102 (2003) DLT 461 wherein in similar fact situation, it was held that grant of pension in terms of Rule 15- A of 1985 Rules and service conditions have to be determined in accordance with the Part- III of First Schedule to1954 Act, that is, same as those of the High Court judges. Pursuant to the said judgment, Government of India had issued a letter for compliance which was duly done by a Government of the State. Domestic help allowance was thus provided to the petitioner therein.

Accordingly, the Court observed that in lieu of the Government of India recognizing the entitlement of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, benefit of domestic help allowance should also be extended to the Petitioner.

Case Title: Dinesh Chandra Verma vs. State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Law and Justice and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 226 [WRIT A No. 18675/2020]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 226

Counsel for Petitioner: Shireesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Shailendra Kumar Singh, Prakhar Mishra, Dev Rishi Kumar, Gaurav Mehrotra

Click Here To Read/Download Order